Global Warming: Nobody Predicted Temperatures Could Be This Low

By squeaker

As we enjoy a period of delightful weather in Ottawa, I thought I’d share a chart showing how mistaken the climate “experts” are about global warming. The chart is courtesy of climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer.

This chart (shown below, click to enlarge) compares the evolution of actual temperatures vs. the predictions of 44 different climate models. The actual temperatures are shown by the solid red and blue lines at the bottom labelled UAH and RSS. These are satellite measurements since 1979 and are considered to be very accurate. All the other squiggly lines are the predictions of the 44 climate models. The dark black line is the average of the 44 squiggly predictions and is approximately representative of the view of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is like the Magisterium for the global warming crowd. Their pronouncements drive government policies.

Four key observations jump out of this chart:

  1. The actual temperatures in both 2011 and 2012 were lower than even the lowest forecast among the 44 models. Not a single model had expected temperatures to be this low.
  2. Even over the prior period of history since 1979, the models typically overestimate global temperatures. I’ve built a lot of forecasting models in my life, in the field of economics. Forecasting 101 says that if your model can’t even forecast the past, then don’t pretend it can forecast the future. Unfortunately, although many climatologists are brilliant in their own field, they have been found to not understand statistical modelling very well.
  3. The dark black line, which forms the basis for IPCC policy recommendations, is increasingly out of touch with reality, being about half of degree from actual temperatures in 2012. Even if the IPCC’s forecast has the right slope for the 2012-2025 period, it’s starting point in 2012 should be down at where actual temperatures are, not way up at some theoretical level disconnected from the real world. In forecasting jargon, we’d say that the “hand off” is erroneous.
  4. Ignore all the lines and focus on just the blue and red lines measuring actual temperatures. If you put your hand on the screen to hide all the years prior to 1998, you’ll see that temperatures since then have no upward trend. There are some ups and downs, but on average they’re stable. Scientists are dumbfounded by this. They don’ know how this can be possible and are scrambling for explanations. CO2 emissions have risen steadily since 1998 but temperatures have not.

The bottom line is that scientists don’t know as much about climate as they think. There are many forces at play that they don’t understand and can’t predict. Their models are an epic FAIL. The gap between their predictions and reality keeps growing each year. Any predictions based on these models are speculation at best. Policies based on speculation are a train wreck in the making.

I don’t fault these scientists for trying to project temperatures, nor do I fault them for failing. Predicting the future is no easy task. But I do fault them for failing to admit that their models are faulty and instead issuing very definitive policy recommendations enrobed in fear mongering.

It’s actually laughable that the whole world is implementing policies based on models that are so visibly bunk. How can this be possible, if not because ideology is driving the movement?

One thought on “Global Warming: Nobody Predicted Temperatures Could Be This Low

  1. Yes it’s indeed ideological. They don’t want the facts to interfere with their world view. It’s the same crowd that wants to use the myth of global warming to justify draconian measures to impose on the world, including reducing the population (usually the third world is its main target). I’m also surprised that there are still some gullible people and organizations out there that still buy into this fraud. Can we blame the mainstream media, in part?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
17 + 10 =